Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Case Reports in Obstetrics and Gynecology
Volume 2013, Article ID 450165, 4 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/450165
Case Report

Bilateral Ectopic Hypoplastic Uteri Attached to Bilateral Pelvic Sidewalls in a 21-Year-Old Patient with Primary Amenorrhea: The First Published Report

1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center (KFSH&RC), P.O. Box 3354, Riyadh 11211, Saudi Arabia
2College of Medicine, Alfaisal University, P.O. Box 50927, Riyadh 11533, Saudi Arabia
3Department of General Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria University, Alexandria 21526, Egypt

Received 11 September 2013; Accepted 29 September 2013

Academic Editors: M. F. Diejomaoh and O. Oyesanya

Copyright © 2013 Ahmed Nazer et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. M. R. Laufer, D. P. Goldstein, and W. H. Hendren, “Structural abnormalities of the female reproductive tract,” in Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, S. J. Emans, M. R. Laufer, and D. P. Goldstein, Eds., pp. 362–416, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Boston, Mass, USA, 5th edition, 2005. View at Google Scholar
  2. B. L. Junqueira, L. M. Allen, R. F. Spitzer, K. L. Lucco, P. S. Babyn, and A. S. Doria, “Müllerian duct anomalies and mimics in children and adolescents: correlative intraoperative assessment with clinical imaging,” Radiographics, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 1085–1103, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. V. C. Buttram Jr., V. Gomel, A. Siegler, A. DeCherney, W. Gibbons, and C. March, “The American Fertility Society classifications of adnexal adhesions, distal tubal occlusion, tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, Mullerian anomalies and intrauterine adhesions,” Fertility and Sterility, vol. 49, no. 6, pp. 944–955, 1988. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. T. M. Chandler, L. S. Machan, P. L. Cooperberg, A. C. Harris, and S. D. Chang, “Müllerian duct anomalies: from diagnosis to intervention,” British Journal of Radiology, vol. 82, no. 984, pp. 1034–1042, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. R. N. Troiano and S. M. McCarthy, “Müllerian duct anomalies: imaging and clinical issues,” Radiology, vol. 233, no. 1, pp. 19–34, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. G. F. Grimbizis, M. Camus, B. C. Tarlatzis, J. N. Bontis, and P. Devroey, “Clinical implications of uterine malformations and hysteroscopic treatment results,” Human Reproduction Update, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 161–174, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. L. Fedele, S. Bianchi, and G. Frontino, “Septums and synechiae: approaches to surgical correction,” Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 767–788, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. A. F. Scarsbrook and N. R. Moore, “MRI appearances of Müllerian duct abnormalities,” Clinical Radiology, vol. 58, no. 10, pp. 747–754, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. C. Mazouni, G. Girard, R. Deter, J.-B. Haumonte, B. Blanc, and F. Bretelle, “Diagnosis of Mullerian anomalies in adults: evaluation of practice,” Fertility and Sterility, vol. 89, no. 1, pp. 219–222, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. P. Braun, F. V. Grau, R. M. Pons, and D. P. Enguix, “Is hysterosalpingography able to diagnose all uterine malformations correctly? A retrospective study,” European Journal of Radiology, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 274–279, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. M. H. Pui, “Imaging diagnosis of congenital uterine malformation,” Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics, vol. 28, no. 7, pp. 425–433, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. M. B. Doyle, “Magnetic resonance imaging in müllerian fusion defects,” Journal of Reproductive Medicine, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 33–38, 1992. View at Google Scholar
  13. J. S. Pellerito, S. M. McCarthy, M. B. Doyle, M. G. Glickman, and A. H. DeCherney, “Diagnosis of uterine anomalies: relative accuracy of MR imaging, endovaginal sonography, and hysterosalpingography,” Radiology, vol. 183, no. 3, pp. 795–800, 1992. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. O. Ozsarlak, A. M. A. De Schepper, M. Valkenburg, and L. Delbeke, “Septate uterus: hysterosalpingography and magnetic resonance imaging findings,” European Journal of Radiology, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 122–125, 1995. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. T. D. Deutch and A. Z. Abuhamad, “The role of 3-dimensional ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of müllerian duct anomalies: a review of the literature,” Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 413–423, 2008. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. G. C. Mueller, H. K. Hussain, Y. R. Smith et al., “Müllerian duct anomalies: comparison of MRI diagnosis and clinical diagnosis,” American Journal of Roentgenology, vol. 189, no. 6, pp. 1294–1302, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. S. Li, A. Qayyum, F. V. Coakley, and H. Hricak, “Association of renal agenesis and mullerian duct anomalies,” Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 829–834, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus